Earl Aelfheah

There are some obvious differences between traditional bicycles, pedal assist e-bikes, and illegal electric motor powered bikes that are throttle operated.

This is quite old now, but it's an interesting analysis and I thought the final line is quite surprising "A key finding from this use of NTS showed that young males are up to five times safer when they cycle than when they drive – and the rest of us are also safer if they cycle and don’t drive!" https://blog.ukdataservice.ac.uk/nts-road-deaths/#:~:text=Death rates were very similar,other than the car driver.

My kids saw the aftermath of another car crash on the South circular this morning. Can’t even find a report of it online. These incidents are so commonplace.

I associate limos with hen parties more than I do celebrities

Between Herne Hill and North Dulwich gives you good options for transport. You have the line into London Bridge, trains to Victoria and the Thameslink into City Thameslink. Plus it's not too far from Brixton tube.

They have a number plate under the qr code, so you can report any badly parked bikes.

This. Personally, I've always felt safe in London. Probably famous last words and I'll get mugged later.

And this one seems to pour scorn on one of the key strategic objectives of LTNs does it not? And there you go. You're discounting a huge body of high quality research, in order to give greater weight to a single, incomplete study. Wood, trees. You've previously described Professor Aldred as lacking any credibility (apparently that view is flexible depending on the conclusions of her research?). You do see the confirmation bias here right?

Yes, of course. It was incomplete, unpublished research, that hasn't been peer reviewed. It's lead author is someone who those pointing to the article have repeatedly rubbished in the past (unfairly in my opinion, but anyone want to be consistent?). The Times have published huge numbers of exclusively anti-LTN articles such as this, as they know they get click through. But this is a weak article. There is a large body of high quality research evidence regarding LTNs. It's a bit of a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

A study that was curtailed due to funding being withdrawn two years before it was finished (according to TfL). It was directed by Rockets’ favourite researcher, professor Rachel Aldred. I’m sure this incomplete, non published research, which hasn’t been peer reviewed and only reported as showing ‘no reduction in car use’ by the Times (Google ‘the times LTN’ if you want to understand their editorial stance) will be trumpeted as decisive, by those who have previously disparaged aldred. But there you go.

This is ridiculous. Average earnings have risen since 2010. If I say that it's linked to the filter, can we then get into a longwinded debate about earnings data in the transport section? Rockets has made wild and unevidenced claims. He's cherry picked data and still managed to misrepresent it. He's being massively dishonest. If he wants to talk about crime in general, then do it on a crime thread. This one is about the square.

You have provided no evidence of your claim that the filter on Calton avenue increased crime, road danger, or pollution. It’s not true. Like everyone I have concerns about crime. Unlike you, however, I'm not trying to stoke fears, or spread clearly false information, to service an obsessive grievance about a 5 year old road layout change. It's dishonest and it's shameful.

This isn't true. You repeatedly forget that there is a record of everything you've said. You originally made general claims about a filter causing crime, with no basis at all. Just as you did concerning pollution and pedestrian injuries. Only after being pointed to the data showing that crime has actually reduced since 2021, did you trawl through that data, ignoring the vast majority of it, trying to find any category you might use to try and justify your original, baseless claims. You're now trying to post rationalise why you've cherry picked just three categories, talking about a link with 'quiet streets'... but its nonsense. And you didn't reach your conclusions from the data, your conclusions proceeded you even looking at any data. Even with these transparently dishonest and desperate tactics, you're still just highlighting data that proves your wrong. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery in Dulwich, way above current levels and the London average. Since the filter was introduced it has fallen back in line with background trends. But as usual, you just ignore the facts and just double down on your misrepresentations.

@ianr - Rockets made general and entirely baseless claims about a filter causing crime, originally with no data. Since being challenged, and pointed to the data showing that crime has actually reduced since 2021, he has trawled through it, looking for anything he might cherry pick, to try and justify the baseless claims he'd already made. He's discarded 90% of the data, and mis-interpreted, or deliberately misrepresented the other 10%. There is little point in trying to understand how he has reached his conclusions from the data, because the conclusions proceeded him even looking at any data. You're just ignoring the vast majority of recorded crime categories? Why are you not claiming that 'all crime' has fallen as a result of the filter, but that rising 'theft from the person' has? What about burglary (one of your cherry picked categories), which has significantly fallen? Even if you just talk about correlation for 'theft from the person', how can you possibly discount the background trend (the red line below): The obvious correlation is not between a filter in Dulwich and more theft from the person, it's between rising crime in this category across London (the top line) and a (much slower) rise locally (the bottom line). It's so nakedly dishonest.

Whether or not there have been rises in crime in the last few months is not remotely relevant to your claim about a road filter introduced 5 years ago, causing more crime. There is not even a correlation between crime rates and the introduction of the filter, let alone any evidence of causation (as far as there might be said to be a correlation, across all crime the association is mainly positive). It's objectively dishonest.